Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Aaro ghosts for the "Guilty Pleasures" column of Metro

In which, Aaro does what the broadsheets are regularly mocked for, repeating all the salacious and entertaining redtop stories, under guise of condemning them for their triviality and prurience. The unworthy thought occurs that perhaps he is speaking in parables here, and really wants to talk to us about another leader of a troubled institution who the press are all clamouring to resign ... but that would be too easy.

I don't think this was a very well thought-out column or a particularly sensible argument - it's basically a twitch of the knee in the direction of Aaro's reflex response to any attempt by the media to criticise anyone in a position of leadership. I was wondering whether it was a sign of something or other that the captain of the national football team had now entered the charmed circle of those who Aaro regards as far above any criticism on any grounds at all, as opposed to those of us lower down the food chain, interference in whose personal lives is practically a duty of government. But no, I think he's just flexing the muscles and keeping his hand in for writing "bias against understanding" bollo.

He's also presenting a somewhat deracinated view of human life - apparently, if Danny Finkelstein slept with the wife of another Times leader-writer, Aaro would expect it to have next to no effect on the Comment team's morale and teamwork, as they all sagely worked together to inform us that more regulation was not the answer, and that China needs to take its place at the top table. Unrealistic, I think.

4 Comments:

orgainc cheeseboard said...

Dare I suggest that Terry’s crime is not in being unfaithful to his wife — a condition we are blasé about these days — but in stealing another man’s woman?

Er, that's the entire point of it yeah, as anyone who's read the papers knows - it's why there was no similar clamour for Beckham to step down when he'd been having an affair. Bridge had previously let Terry conduct his affairs in Bridge's house for goodness' sake.

the lack of particular and urgent interest in Terry’s other adulteries with unattached ladies

a lack of interest so profound that Aaro reproduces most of it in the same column.

The social power of footballers is, in large part, famously expressed by their possession of WAGs, of “trophy wives”, women whose main, if not only, attribute is their astounding and immediate good looks.

This is utter rubbish, isn't it? In any case I agree that aaro should have left this subject alone. Beside anything else, it's unlikely tht Bridge will be a part of the World Cup squad, he's been playing really badly when not crocked. Terry is a nasty piece of work; i didn't really want him to be captain in the first place but the decision lies with Capello and no-one else.

the following has become something of a mantra of mine recently, as Martin Amis also did it in his Prospect interview and Sebastian Faulks did it recently too, but any writer who starts to rely on their kids for information and/or material is pretty much guaranteed to have lost it.

This is the subtext to a lot of the commentary, isn't it - the reason that people are having a go at him is a) actually it is a pretty unacceptable behaviour to have it off with a friend's girlfriend while they are in a relationship, and this has nothing really to do with "stealing another man's woman" or the fucking Eskimos and b) nobody likes him, nobody has ever liked him and this is why they wish him ill. B) being as far as I can see entirely relevant to a leadership job, if that's what this is.

On the subject of endorsements, I've thought for some time that if we are going to have an economy that involve selling images and personalities, the images and personalities ought to be examined to see if they are actually worth buying into.

If someone earns a lot of money on the basis that they claim to be/are presented as X, I'd like to know whether X is true.

On the subject of leadership, in so much as the captain of the England football team leads the team, and team membership - if Terry had behaved in a comparably abominable, or even a less abominable, way towards a teammate that didn't involve the use of his dick, would anyone think that knowledge of this behaviour wasn't in the public interest - at least as so long as the workings of the England football team ought to be public knowledge?

The only argument for keeping it out of the papers is the protection of his kids - won't somebody think of the children - but then we all ought to round on Terry for the fact that he's been selling his family as part of an commercial image. Perhaps if people weren't allowed to market their image as a family man, or a good mum, or the like - and we all pay them for that image as they vacuum cash from the economy - we wouldn't have the problem. And as illiberal as preventing people selling photos, stories and engaging in promotional work that rests of commodifying their families might be, its a lot less illiberal than a super-injunction.